Since assessee along with his mother and siblings entered into a JDA with M/s. S, which was a registered document, therefore, on entering into JDA, there was a ‘transfer’ as per section 2(47) and consequently capital gain was attracted.
Assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.54F to the whole extent of investment in purchase of new asset, even though property had been purchased in the joint names of assessee, his wife and son.
Section 2(47) is containing an inclusive definition and inter alia, it provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset.
Due to amendment made in section 132 by the Finance Act, 2017 w.r.e.f. 1-4-1962 the reason to believe or reason to suspect, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or authority or appellate Tribunal as recorded, by IT authority under section 132 or 132A, therefore, assessment order passed was not bad in law on account of not furnishing any valid reason for conducting the search.
IBM India Pvt. Ltd case: IBM Philippines received the monies in the course of their business and did not have PE in India and therefore the receipt in question could not be brought to tax
Microfinish Valves Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bengalore) No deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in case loan to borrower not being shareholder in lender company Conclusion: Since assessee was not a shareholder in lender company, therefore, AO was unjustified in taxing loan received by assessee as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Held: Assessee was a company […]
Period of holding ESOP options transferred by the assessee in course of buy-back scheme of his employer was to be counted from the date of grant of ESOP option and date of vesting was not relevant as options were transferred without any exercise.
Provisions of section 115JB would not be applied to assessee-company where assessee was governed by different Acts and Rules, and was not required to prepare its profit & loss account and balance sheet as per Part II & III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act.
the Tribunal had held that absence of TRC cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of DTAA. It has only held that the assessee should furnish evidence for the claim of exemption.
Assessee was eligible for exemption under section 10(37) on interest received by him on enhanced compensation as the same partook the character of compensation paid by government on compulsory acquisition of assessee’s agricultural land.
